Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JORGEN GUNDERSON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200654 · 1 · BUZZARD CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:13 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — every figure regenerates from this named code version and data image.
Where it sits
Location as DWR records it. Faint dots are the neighbouring water; click any to open it.
Which of its rights are out of priority?
Not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1895-10-15 — 199th most senior of the 2166 structures with decreed rights in this water districtDWR's administrative subdivision of a river basin; the unit calls are usually stated in..
Under prior appropriationColorado's rule for sharing water: first in time, first in right. Age decides, not proximity or need., everything ahead of it in this line is satisfied in full before it receives any water. Immediately ahead: COTTONWOOD LAKES RES 2 (1895-08-01). Immediately behind: EAKIN-SMITH DITCH (1896-02-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| Admin noDWR's numeric encoding of a water right's seniority. Smaller is more senior; the integer part counts days from 1849-12-31 to the date that ranks the right. | AppropriatedWhen water was first put to beneficial use. It sets seniority unless a prior adjudication date is later. | AdjudicatedWhen the water court confirmed the right. A use decreed in 1975 was not a decreed use in 1955, however old the appropriation is. | AbsoluteA right actually put to use, as opposed to conditional -- a placeholder for a use not yet made. | ConditionalA right reserving a place in line for a use not yet made; it must be diligently pursued or it lapses. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22995.16724 | 1895-10-15 | 1916-06-01 | 0.72 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 34419.29354 | 1930-05-15 | 1959-07-21 | 0.28 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 34419.33443 | 1941-07-25 | 1959-07-21 | 0.53 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA8303, 99CW0165, CA2635.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA8303 | 4 | 1959-07-21 | S |
99CW0165 | 3 | 1959-07-21 | S |
CA2635 | 2 | 1916-06-01 | S |
DWR's own records for this structure: net amounts · transactions & adjudication history · scanned decrees (search a case number there for the imaged document). On this site: the district's full legal picture →
Recorded use (last 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 239 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 242 AF — 101% of that, and 9th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
| Year | Diverted (AFA volume: one acre covered a foot deep, about 326,000 gallons -- roughly a suburban household's outdoor use for a year.) | Compared with its own record | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 275 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 74 | 3.0 |
| 2005 | 175 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 68 | 1.5 |
| 2008 | 70 | 1st lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 24 | 2.5 |
| 2009 | 244 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 92 | 1.5 |
| 2010 | 194 | 4th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 77 | 1.5 |
| 2011 | 220 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 82 | 1.5 |
| 2012 | 368 | 13th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 127 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 364 | 12th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 116 | 3.6 |
| 2014 | 411 | 14th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 145 | 1.5 |
| 2015 | 482 | 15th lowest of 15 · 202% of median | 178 | 1.5 |
| 2017 | 220 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 75 | 1.5 |
| 2018 | 193 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 70 | 1.5 |
| 2019 | 195 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 73 | 1.5 |
| 2020 | 239 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 87 | 1.5 |
| 2021 | 242 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 56 | 3.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.
The rubric, component by component
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2964 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 27% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2021 carry measured days |
| published-record stability | stable | no upstream revisions recorded against this structure |
Advisory reading aid on public data — not an administrative or legal conclusion, not a title opinion, and not a substitute for DWR administration or an engineer's analysis. Methodology review status is disclosed at hydrohistorian's basin pages.